4.8 Article

Local Slow Waves in Superficial Layers of Primary Cortical Areas during REM Sleep

期刊

CURRENT BIOLOGY
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 396-403

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.11.062

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIMH [R01MH099231]
  2. NINDS [P01NS083514]
  3. Wisconsin Distinguished Rath Graduate Fellowship
  4. NIGMS [T32 GM008962]
  5. HFSP long-term fellowship [LT000263/2012-L]
  6. SciMed GRS Fellowship
  7. NRSA NIGMS [T32 GM007507]
  8. Philips Respironics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sleep is traditionally constituted of two global behavioral states, non-rapid eye movement (NREM) and rapid eye movement (REM), characterized by quiescence and reduced responsiveness to sensory stimuli [1]. NREM sleep is distinguished by slow waves and spindles throughout the cerebral cortex and REM sleep by an activated,'' low-voltage fast electroencephalogram (EEG) paradoxically similar to that of wake, accompanied by rapid eye movements and muscle atonia. However, recent evidence has shown that cortical activity patterns during wake and NREM sleep are not as global as previously thought. Local slow waves can appear in various cortical regions in both awake humans [2] and rodents [3-5]. Intracranial recordings in humans [6] and rodents [4, 7] have shown that NREM sleep slow waves most often involve only a subset of brain regions that varies from wave to wave rather than occurring near synchronously across all cortical areas. Moreover, some cortical areas can transiently wake up'' [8] in an otherwise sleeping brain. Yet until now, cortical activity during REM sleep was thought to be homogenously wake-like. We show here, using local laminar recordings in freely moving mice, that slow waves occur regularly during REM sleep, but only in primary sensory and motor areas and mostly in layer 4, the main target of relay thalamic inputs, and layer 3. This finding may help explain why, during REM sleep, we remain disconnected from the environment even though the bulk of the cortex shows wake-like, paradoxical activation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据